Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday. May 21.2001 <br />(W2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE. CONTINUED) <br />owners whai can and cannot happen on this proper!) with respect to hardcover and structural <br />coverage. <br />Smith commented she is m favor of a covenant. <br />Weinberger stated if the ice house is to remain, a variance would need to be granted <br />Stoddard stated it was his understanding they were under the hardcover limit bv 58 square feel. <br />Weinberger staled that is without the ice house being included With the ice house Ihcv would be <br />50 square feel over, which would require a variance. <br />Klulh staled if the ice house renuins. ihev would not he allowed to construct a sidewalk or driveway <br />to the third stall. <br />Stoddard inquired what steps the Applicants have taken to reduce hard cover since the November <br />meeting. <br />Cable staled they have removed the fireplace. <br />Smith inquired whether the sidewalk and driveway were included in the site plan at the November <br />meeting. <br />Mrs. Cable stated they were not. <br />Stoddard stated he had misunderstood the situation and thivughl the Applicants were under the 25 <br />percent limit with the ice house. <br />Kluth slated this application was tabled in November to allow the Applicants lime to make some <br />changes to their plan to enable them to keep the ice house, which have not been done and that he <br />would like to make a motion denying the application. <br />Klulh moved In o recommend denial of Application «26J6. <iary and Susan Cable, 35J2 Ivy <br />Place, for a hardcov er variance and variance lo allow an accessory structure located in the 0>75* <br />setback to remain on the property. <br />Kluth stated the application was tabled in order to give the Applicants time to reduce the hardcover in <br />order to keep the ice house, which have not been done, and by constructing a residence without a <br />sidewalk and driveway access to the third stall of the garage was simply delaying a request for <br />additional hardcover into the future. Kluth staled in his opinion protective covenants have only <br />limited value since it only puts the next property owner on alert to what is or is not allowed on the <br />property, with the City luving limited means of monitoring these types of properties. <br />Stoddard stated the Applicants also have the option to table this application in order them to reduce the <br />hardcover further. Stoddard commented he had the understanding the Applicant was going to consider <br />reducing the garage somewhat in order to lower the hardcover. <br />PAGE 5 <br />1